Connect with us

News

Right of Reply: Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy, Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood

Published

on

Right of Reply: Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy, Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood

Oladimeji Badmus

It’s good to see the Minister’s article on Nigeria’s foreign policy and its implementation has sparked a round of intellectual debate. Bola A. Akinterinwa article titled Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy beyond the dangerous neighborhood published in the ThisDay Newspaper of 12th January 3025, is a healthy and enriching contribution.

That said, it’s important to stick to facts and attribute statements to those participating in this much needed discourse the way they said it and fairly. The Minister mentioned Strategic Autonomy as the fulcrum of the Tinubu Administration’s agenda, not as a sixth foreign policy objective for Nigeria. Nowhere in his article did he try to amend the Constitution and ascribe it an additional foreign policy objective. What Akinterinwa has done here is to use casuistry to turn epistemology (Strategic Autonomy, Democracy Demography and Diaspora, etc) into Ontology (the five foreign policy objectives of Nigeria stated in the Constitution).

These are two different things. Akinterinwa should have instead listed Strategic Autonomy along with Bolaji Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine, Gambari’s Concentricism and Olu Adeniji’s Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism.
Strategic Autonomy is the 21st Century version of Balewa’s non-alignment. If non-alignment was never mistaken to be a foreign policy objective, how can Strategic Autonomy be deemed to be one?


The executive arm of government is responsible for implementing agenda to achieve the foreign policy objectives, not to question the said objectives government officials, both political appointees and civil servants are sworn to protecting and abiding by the requirements of the Constitution. They do not have the luxury to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are right or wrong as Akinterinwa’s article seems to regress into. He even appears to romanticize the irredentist notions of IPOB and Oodua groups and justifies it as the right to self-determination. One may then ask, how well are South Sudan and Somali Land fairing (two recent examples of irredentist movements that achieved statehood)?


There is a process for amending Nigeria’s constitution, which requires support of the two chambers of the National Assembly and two thirds of the state houses of assembly. We Nigerians expect the foreign minister to focus on actualizing our foreign policy objectives and abiding by the constitution and not pursue amendment to please irredentist movements or neighbouring countries. The Constitution may have got it wrong by mentioning the protection of national interest and respect for international law as objectives instead of an act, but so it remain until it is amended. We should not expect an administration or its foreign Minister with a four year term to focus on such pedantic hair-splitting. Their focus should be on what they swore to uphold.


Akinterinwa argues that distancing ourselves from France because some of our neighbors do not get along with her would help African integration. This is a simplistic view of complex global politics. We must not take a manichaean view of our relationships with other countries. It is not a Cowboy movie where all the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys black ones. As an intellectual, I would have expected Akinterinwa to unpack the contents of Nigeria’s relationship with France. It is presently I-Dice through which thousands of young Nigerians are to be trained in digital technology.

It is Investments in renewable energy to provide electricity. It is also in getting the support of France to become a member of the G20 and a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, where Nigeria’s big voice will help actualise the very same African integration and also assist more deliberate developmental support for the likes of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.

And in terms of working with our neighbors towards a more secure neighborhood, I believe the Minister mentioned in his article that working with sahelian countries alone will not fix the security challenges without fixing Libya. You cannot fix Libya without working with the very same major powers including France that created the problem in the first place. Engaging with France based on the above is not tantamount with being bellicose towards our neighbors. And what happens tomorrow if there is another coup in Niger and the new government says they have kissed and made up with France? Would Akinterinwa then expect the Nigerian government to immediately pivot and start being friendly with France because Niger’s leadership says it’s ok? This would be the tail wagging the dog, Niger leading Nigeria.

Oladimeji Badmus is the Convener of Mwalimu Peers a Pan African International Affairs Think-Tank

Right of Reply: Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy, Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions

Published

on

Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions

By: Zagazola Makama

Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye has dismissed Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko and dissolved the country’s government following months of growing political tensions between the two leaders.

The decision was announced late Friday through a presidential decree broadcast on state television.

According to the decree read by a presidential aide, President Faye “ended the duties of Ousmane Sonko and consequently those of the ministers and secretaries of state who are members of the government.”

No immediate replacement for Sonko was announced as of the time of filing this report.

The dismissal followed a parliamentary session earlier in the week during which Sonko openly criticised President Faye, further exposing divisions within the ruling political establishment.

Political observers said relations between the two leaders had deteriorated in recent months over issues relating to party leadership, governance direction and the management of state affairs.

Analysts noted that the development could introduce fresh political uncertainty in Senegal at a time the country is facing mounting economic pressures, including rising public debt and broader fiscal challenges.

The dissolution of the government is expected to trigger consultations within the ruling coalition ahead of the appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet.

Senegal has long been regarded as one of West Africa’s more stable democracies, but recent political tensions have continued to attract regional and international attention.

Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions

Continue Reading

News

Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle

Published

on

Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle

By: Zagazola Makama

The dismissal of Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko by President Bassirou Diomaye Faye marks the culmination of a political rupture that many observers had long considered unavoidable.

What once appeared to be one of the strongest political alliances in contemporary Senegalese politics gradually evolved into a tense rivalry shaped less by ideology than by competing ambitions, institutional contradictions and the struggle for control of executive authority.

For months, tensions within the ruling camp had become increasingly visible. Though both men emerged from the same political movement and jointly embodied the rise of the PASTEF coalition against former President Macky Sall, the coexistence between a highly charismatic political mentor and a constitutionally empowered head of state proved difficult to sustain.

The crisis is anchored in a fundamental institutional reality:Senegal’s constitutional system ultimately concentrates executive legitimacy in the presidency.

While the Prime Minister exercises substantial governmental authority, the President remains the central pillar of executive power, deriving legitimacy directly from universal suffrage and serving as the supreme authority of the state.

Sources say that the conflict emerged because Sonko increasingly projected himself not merely as head of government, but as an alternative center of political gravity within the state apparatus.

Public speeches, political positioning and repeated demonstrations of personal influence created the perception that two competing executives were operating simultaneously within the same administration.

In highly presidential systems, such arrangements rarely survive for long.

Political theorists have often observed that leaders who attain supreme office tend to resist the emergence of rival figures whose popularity, influence or visibility may overshadow their own authority. The situation in Senegal increasingly reflected that classic tension between institutional legitimacy and political charisma.

Sonko’s political trajectory has long been built around a populist and confrontational style that resonated strongly with segments of Senegalese youth and anti-establishment voters. His appeal stemmed from a mixture of direct rhetoric, anti-system positioning, nationalist discourse and his ability to embody political resistance during years of confrontation with the former administration.

However, the same qualities that fueled his rise may also have contributed to his political isolation. Sourcds note that charismatic populist figures often struggle to adapt from opposition politics to the discipline and compromise required in governance. A political strategy built around constant confrontation can become difficult to reconcile with the institutional restraints of executive power-sharing.

Over time, Sonko appeared increasingly convinced that he remained the true engine behind the ruling coalition’s legitimacy and electoral success. That perception may have encouraged attempts to expand his political influence beyond the traditional boundaries of the prime ministerial office.

For President Diomaye Faye, allowing such an imbalance to persist carried political risks.

The removal of Sonko ultimately reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle, regardless of personal popularity, a Prime Minister remains subordinate to presidential authority in Senegal’s current institutional framework.

By dismissing his Prime Minister, Diomaye signaled that he intended to fully exercise the powers attached to the presidency rather than govern under the shadow of a more dominant political personality.

The decision may also represent an attempt to consolidate state authority, reassure institutional actors and prevent the emergence of dual centers of power capable of paralysing governance. Yet the move is not without danger.

Sonko still commands significant grassroots support and retains strong influence within sections of PASTEF and among politically mobilized youth constituencies. His removal could deepen divisions inside the ruling coalition and potentially reshape Senegal’s political landscape ahead of future elections.

One of the major questions now facing Senegalese politics is whether PASTEF can survive the split without suffering a major internal fracture. Political history across Africa shows that when alliances forged in opposition reach power, tensions often emerge over authority, succession and control of state institutions.

Some party officials and elected representatives may rally behind the President, who controls the state apparatus and constitutional legitimacy. Others may remain loyal to Sonko due to his personal popularity and historical role in the movement’s rise.

The outcome of that struggle could determine whether Senegal experiences a relatively stable political recomposition or enters a prolonged period of institutional tension.

Another key factor will be public sentiment. During years of opposition politics, confrontation and political mobilisation energized large sections of the electorate. However, governing presents different expectations. Many Senegalese citizens now appear increasingly concerned with economic management, institutional stability, governance reforms and social calm rather than perpetual political conflict.

That shift may strengthen Diomaye’s position if he succeeds in presenting himself as a stabilizing statesman capable of governing above partisan rivalries. At the same time, any perception that Sonko has been politically sidelined or unfairly neutralized could trigger renewed political mobilisation among his supporters.

The crisis illustrates a recurring lesson in political systems across the world. Conquering power together is often easier than sharing it afterward. The Diomaye–Sonko alliance was extraordinarily effective as an opposition force united against a common adversary. But once in office, the unresolved question of who truly embodied executive authority became increasingly difficult to avoid.

What began as political complementarity gradually transformed into institutional competition.

The final outcome remains uncertain. Diomaye may emerge stronger by consolidating presidential authority, or Sonko could retain enough political capital to remain a major force capable of reshaping Senegal’s future political balance.

Either way, the rupture marks a turning point in Senegalese politics and may redefine the future trajectory of one of West Africa’s most closely watched democracies.

Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle

Continue Reading

News

Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes

Published

on

Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes

By Comrade Philip Ikodor

KADUNA – When a soldier falls in the line of duty, the echoes of the final salute eventually fade, but for the families left behind, a silent and grueling battle begins. While these brave men defended the nation’s sovereignty with courage, their widows are often left to navigate a minefield of poverty, trauma, and social isolation.

In a decisive move to address these challenges, the Ashlee Momoh Foundation (AMF) held a special outreach event at the Golden Orange Gate Hotel in Kaduna State on Thursday, May 21, 2026. The initiative sought to provide a lifeline to the families of departed heroes, framed not as charity, but as a profound national debt of gratitude.

The Chairperson and CEO of the Foundation, Princess Ashlee Momoh, emphasized that the AMF remains committed to ensuring no widow walks alone. She noted that the sacrifice of a soldier continues in the quiet hallways of homes where wives suddenly become sole providers.

“Many military widows face a daunting reality: sudden loss of income, housing insecurity, and a lack of access to specialized mental health support,” Princess Momoh stated. “Unless intentional interventions are made, these families remain trapped in a cycle of hardship that dishonors the legacy of the departed. Your story does not end in sorrow; it continues in purpose.”

Princess Momoh outlined the Foundation’s three strategic pillars designed to bridge the gap between loss and self-sufficiency:

Economic Independence: Providing small business grants, financial literacy, and vocational skills to restore dignity and autonomy.

Securing the Future: Offering scholarships and tuition assistance so that children do not pay for their fathers’ patriotism with their education. Emotional Fortitude: Establishing counseling and wellness groups to ensure widows are seen, heard, and sustained.

The Chairperson called for a “whole-of-society” approach, urging the government, private sector, and philanthropic organizations to join in collective action. While government intervention is pivotal, she noted that partnerships are essential to scaling the impact of these programs.

The event featured the distribution of empowerment gift items and the announcement of new scholarship awards. Prominent guests, partners and volunteers in attendance included Special Guests of Honor, Air Commodore Chris Dola (Rtd), PhD, and General Brown Yakubu (Rtd), CEO of Golden Orange Gate Hotel, both of whom delivered goodwill messages and also contributed immensely in support of the Foundation’s mission.

Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes

Continue Reading

Trending

Verified by MonsterInsights